User Controls
How come the government doesn't
-
2017-06-10 at 7:38 PM UTCCharge or make money off of allowing people to talk to famous or notorious criminals who are incarcerated?
-
2017-06-10 at 7:44 PM UTCWe don't want to incentivize incarceration.
-
2017-06-10 at 7:47 PM UTC
-
2017-06-10 at 8:01 PM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ Charge or make money off of allowing people to talk to famous or notorious criminals who are incarcerated?
that would be illegal. it is against the law to make money from criminal activity.
prisoner labor sold to private companies is against constitutional law...but they do it anyway.
more evidence that this country is a corpocracy -
2017-06-10 at 8:40 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon We don't want to incentivize incarceration.
Well, I don't know. Ive been pondering it a bit more, and I don't necessarily see how that would make becoming a notorious criminals any more appealing than it already is.
Knowing I can talk to Charles Manson doesn't make me want to be my own Charles Manson. If anything it would make me less likely to commit a crime because I want to be free, and able to talk to criminals if I so choose. Know what I mean? -
2017-06-10 at 9:19 PM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ Well, I don't know. Ive been pondering it a bit more, and I don't necessarily see how that would make becoming a notorious criminals any more appealing than it already is.
Knowing I can talk to Charles Manson doesn't make me want to be my own Charles Manson. If anything it would make me less likely to commit a crime because I want to be free, and able to talk to criminals if I so choose. Know what I mean?
It's not about incentivizing the criminals, it's about incentivizing the state.
Imagine if you could volunteer to be experimented upon to shorten your prison term. Sounds good, right? Paying off your debt to society a different way?
... So all we have to do to make great scientific advances with legal human teating... Is throw more people in prison! Welcome to marijuana related arrests, for example.
In the case of profiting off a serial killer etc, it's less direct than that, but there's a reason why it's principally bad to profit off criminal activity, including taking advantage while they're incarcerated.
Of course that goes out the window with stuff like prison labour, but that's the principle at least. -
2017-06-10 at 9:25 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon It's not about incentivizing the criminals, it's about incentivizing the state.
Imagine if you could volunteer to be experimented upon to shorten your prison term. Sounds good, right? Paying off your debt to society a different way?
… So all we have to do to make great scientific advances with legal human teating… Is throw more people in prison! Welcome to marijuana related arrests, for example.
In the case of profiting off a serial killer etc, it's less direct than that, but there's a reason why it's principally bad to profit off criminal activity, including taking advantage while they're incarcerated.
Of course that goes out the window with stuff like prison labour, but that's the principle at least.
I see what you're saying but human testing and experimentation of incarcerated individuals seems to be apples to the oranges of charging the public to talk to a criminal, or even just look at them, for that matter. There would be no incentive for the criminal to partake other than their own desire to participate- no special favors or reduced sentences.
And prison labor seems to be a perfect example of how we clearly don't give a shit about morals or whatever the fuck, which is why it sort of surprises me the govt isn't using famous criminals to put even more money in their pocket.
I'm probably missing something glaring, but I don't think it would hurt anyone or anything. -
2017-06-10 at 10:10 PM UTCbecause of me, no doubt
